State v. Jessica M. Randall
2019 WI 80
| Wis. | 2019Background
- Jessica Randall was arrested for OWI and consented on a police form to an evidentiary blood draw; a medical professional drew the blood an hour later.
- Two days after the draw and before laboratory analysis, Randall (through counsel) sent a letter revoking consent and demanding the sample be returned or destroyed.
- The Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene responded that release required authorization from the submitting agency, then proceeded to test the sample; the test showed BAC .210.
- Randall was charged with OWI offenses and moved to suppress the blood-test results on the ground she had revoked consent before testing; the circuit court granted suppression.
- The court of appeals affirmed based on precedent treating taking and testing as a continuous search; the State appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed: it held the Fourth Amendment search was completed when the blood was drawn and that an arrestee arrested for intoxicated driving has no privacy interest in the alcohol concentration of lawfully seized blood.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the blood draw and subsequent laboratory analysis are two separate Fourth Amendment searches | Randall: drawing and testing implicate distinct privacy interests; she revoked consent to the second (testing) so testing was unlawful | State: only the draw is the constitutional "search"; testing is examination of lawfully seized evidence and needs no separate justification | Held: single search completed at the draw; testing the seized blood for alcohol does not implicate the Fourth Amendment in this context |
| Whether a suspect may revoke consent after the draw but before testing to prevent analysis | Randall: yes — consent may be withdrawn while a search is ongoing; testing had not yet occurred | State: revocation after completion of the search (the draw) cannot bar use of evidence already lawfully obtained | Held: revocation after the draw is ineffective to prevent BAC testing because no protected privacy interest remained in BAC once lawfully seized |
| Whether precedent (Schmerber, Birchfield, Skinner, Riley) requires separate warrant or limits post-draw testing | Randall relies on cases recognizing privacy in bodily information and on Riley's concerns about broad data access | State argues those cases focus on the intrusiveness of the draw or on method-specific limits (blood vs breath) but do not create a post-draw warrant requirement for BAC testing | Held: court construes Schmerber/Birchfield as treating the draw as the constitutionally significant intrusion and rejects applying Riley to require a warrant for BAC testing of seized blood |
| Scope limits on testing (e.g., may State test for unrelated genetic/medical data) | Randall: testing could reveal sensitive non-BAC information; privacy safeguards apply | State: consent/ statutory limits and forensic procedures constrain testing; court limits holding to BAC/drug-concentration testing after arrest for OWI | Held: court reasons the State may test for alcohol/drugs consistent with the purpose for arrest and limits its holding to that context (not broader medical/genetic testing) |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (exigency and constitutionality of nonconsensual blood draw; focuses on the draw as the Fourth Amendment event)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (distinguishes breath and blood testing; recognizes preserved blood can contain more information but treats draw as the search)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (warrant required to search digital data on a seized cell phone; emphasizes breadth of private data and limits of incidental-search reasoning)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (governmental collection and chemical analysis of biological samples implicate privacy interests; describes intrusion and ensuing analysis)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent is a well-established exception to the warrant requirement)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (search incident to arrest doctrine: seizure of weapons and evidence on person or within immediate control)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (testing/examination of lawfully seized items to determine evidentiary character involves no separate warrant requirement)
- United States v. Snyder, 852 F.2d 471 (9th Cir. 1988) (when blood is lawfully seized incident to arrest for DUI, subsequent BAC testing has no independent Fourth Amendment significance)
- State v. VanLaarhoven, 248 Wis. 2d 881 (Wis. Ct. App.) (lawful seizure of blood encompasses subsequent examination; defendants cannot parse seizure into multiple events)